Maybe a dumb question but how is NVIDIA increasing the total supply of money? Only the fed can actually order more money to be "created". Private companies can only work within the existing supply, that is, their reserves, no?
Nvidia is vendor financing its output.
An ai company order $100m of GPUs. Nvidia delivers and holds onto that debt as an asset - like a bank loan.
The production company uses AI to create better plant and purchases $100m of AI tokens to do so. The ai company hold that debt like a bank loan
Nvidia requests $100m of production based on its $100m of orders. The production company holds that debt like a bank loan.
You now have a monetary loop. Take a single $10 bank deposit and Nvidia pays the production company, who pays the ai company who pays Nvidia. Run that round the circle a few million times and everybody has been paid.
Rinse and repeat.
No. For the same reason that oxygen being transported into and out of the body doesn't mean there was no oxygen.
First, under US GAAP rules (ASC 606), you cannot recognize revenue from a vendor-financed sale unless it meets certain criteria, the biggest one of which is: it has to be probable that the buyer will actually pay you. If a default is likely, revenue recognition is deferred until cash changes hands.
Nvidia's massive revenue is therefore not from a bunch of dubious vendor-financed sales to counterparties who don't have the money to pay and need a fraudulent scheme to make the arrangement work. Furthermore, Nvidia, by its own disclosure, indicates that when it extends financing to customers, they pay, on average, within 2 months (53 days to be exact). So these are not years-long extensions of credit.
This doesn't apply to Nvidia extending trade credit and this description of bank money creation isn't even the accepted version today anyway.
Regarding velocity: a receivable on Nvidia's books isn't in M1 or M2 and nobody accepts it as payment. The AI company will still settle its bills with vendors and pay its employees in bank deposits. The "$10 running round the circle a million times" story is just netting. Clearinghouses have done this for centuries with literally 0 effect on the money supply.
If the OP's production company can't actually deliver $100 million of goods, someone has to write it down and no amount of velocity makes the company solvent. Net-60 payment terms are ordinary trade credit that any major B2B supplier extends. It's no different for Boeing, Caterpillar or [name a major manufacturer). If you're going to call this "money creation," you're saying that every net-30 or net-60 invoice is "money creation" too, which is ridiculous because it's patently false.
None of this is to say that there aren't legitimate circularity concerns about Nvidia, particularly around its equity stakes coming back as GPU orders. There are. But even those are about revenue quality and counterparty concentration, not monetary aggregates. Trying to make this a monetary argument when it's not actually weakens the circularity argument.
Of course it does. It's M4. Which turns into M3 through the money markets. Which creates M1 through banks.
Nvidia extending commitments creates M1 via a similar mechanism to the Fed buying Treasuries, thereby increasing deposits at the Federal Reserve (MB) which in turn prompts banks to increase M1.
> and this description of bank money creation isn't even the accepted version today anyway
What description? Most money in modern economics is created by banks. But nothing requires that to be the main mode. We're nowhere close to it, but a high-tariff economy would be expected to rely more on producers than consumers and thus their credit versus consumer deposits.
> If the OP's production company can't actually deliver $100 million of goods, someone has to write it down and no amount of velocity makes the company solvent
The $500 billion isn't net-sixty trade credit, it's long-term commitments for capital expenditure by third parties.
> Trying to make this a monetary argument when it's not actually weakens the circularity argument
No? They're separate issues.
Credit creates money. That's real and separate from to whom one is extending credit, in Nvidia's case, to its customers so they can buy more from Nvidia.
M3 hasn't been published in the US since 2006 and M4 has never been published publicly in the US. Aggregates don't turn into one another like they're moving on a conveyer belt. They're just classification buckets. If you have a dollar in a checking account, it's in M1, M2, M3 and M4 at the same time.
A purchase commitment or a capacity guarantee on Nvidia's balance sheet is just a contract. It isn't in any aggregate, it isn't traded in a money market and nobody accepts it as payment.
> ...via a similar mechanism to the Fed buying Treasuries, thereby increasing deposits at the Federal Reserve (MB) which in turn prompts banks to increase M1
Sorry but this is just wrong. Only the Fed creates reserves. Nvidia signing a contract doesn't do anything at the Fed.
Banks create deposits when they lend and they're constrained by capital and loan demand, not a reserve ratio. Since 2008, reserves have gone up 10x and M1 hasn't. See "Money creation in the modern economy". The multiplier theory as an explanation of how money gets created has been dead for years.
> The $500 billion isn't net-sixty trade credit
I wasn't even talking about this. My comment addressed the OP's argument that Nvidia is holding customer debt as a bank-like asset. That debt is receivables and it's 53 days on average, not years. The $500 billion in the article is mostly bank and private credit cash being loaned to Nvidia's customers and Nvidia providing backstops and guarantees. So if money is being created here, it's the lenders who are creating it, not Nvidia. In this case, Nvidia isn't a bank, it's a credit enhancer.
The legitimate concern is that Nvidia's guarantees are encouraging lenders to lend money to neoclouds on better terms than they otherwise would get (or should get if you want to make that argument). But that's not money creation and trying to pretend that it is only distracts from the real issues.
Conveyor belt is wrong. The term you're looking for is transmission channels. MB is turned into M1 through lending. M3 is turned into M1 through collateralisation and demand stimulation, among other effects.
> If you have a dollar in a checking account, it's in M1, M2, M3 and M4 at the same time.
Yes.
> A purchase commitment or a capacity guarantee on Nvidia's balance sheet is just a contract. It isn't in any aggregate
Of course it is. Why do you think the SPVs want the commitment? They turn around and issue commercial paper and get bank loans and get bonds underwritten against those commitments. All of which turns into checking account deposits. Those SPVs also get a credit rating which lets them sign construction contracts which builders turn around and turn into deposits.
> Banks create deposits when they lend and they're constrained by capital and loan demand, not a reserve ratio
Banks are constrained by capital and liquidity requirements, on one hand, and loan demand, on the other hand.
> if money is being created here, it's the lenders who are creating it, not Nvidia. In this case, Nvidia isn't a bank, it's a credit enhancer
Yes. When the Fed buys Treasuries and increases a bank's reserves at the Fed, it's not actually doing anything in the real economy. The banks then have to turn around and increase lending. If, as you noted, loan demand is stagnant, they have to cut prices, i.e. rates.
The Economist is comparing Nvidia "enhancing" credit conditions in a manner analogous to the way the Fed does. By creating a base that stimulates lending.
> that's not money creation and trying to pretend that it is only distracts from the real issues
It's absolutely money creation in the way a central banker or anyone in the money markets would talk about it.
"Transmission channels" are how policy (rates, credit, etc.) affects the economy, not how aggregates convert into each other.
MB doesn't get "turned into" M1 by lending. Banks don't lend reserves to non-banks. The reserves stay inside the banking system. Lending creates M1 and reserves are provided to match.
I see the point you're trying to make about M3. Instruments like commercial paper can serve as collateral for bank loans that create deposits, but that still isn't conversion. It's new deposit creation with a broad money instrument as collateral.
> Of course it is. Why do you think the SPVs want the commitment? They turn around and issue commercial paper and get bank loans and get bonds underwritten against those commitments. All of which turns into checking account deposits. Those SPVs also get a credit rating which lets them sign construction contracts which builders turn around and turn into deposits.
The commitment isn't in any aggregate. It's collateral or credit support for instruments that are (the SPV's commercial paper and the resulting bank deposits).
That's what I mean by Nvidia being a credit enhancer. You've now agreed the money is created by the lenders and Nvidia is the enhancer. That's what I said two comments ago, so what's left is semantics.
> Yes. When the Fed buys Treasuries and increases a bank's reserves at the Fed, it's not actually doing anything in the real economy. The banks then have to turn around and increase lending. If, as you noted, loan demand is stagnant, they have to cut prices, i.e. rates.
> The Economist is comparing Nvidia "enhancing" credit conditions in a manner analogous to the way the Fed does. By creating a base that stimulates lending.
The Fed changes the risk-free rate for the whole economy. Nvidia is compressing the credit spread for a specific set of borrowers by absorbing their tail risk.
That makes Nvidia less like a central bank than a guarantor. The better analogues are Fannie and Freddie, or a monoline insurer. A guarantor's business looks free until the tail risks it took on turn out to be correlated which is what happened to the monolines in 2007.
That's precisely the scenario the Economist piece is actually worried about (the guarantees coming due at the same time Nvidia's own sales weaken).
> It's absolutely money creation in the way a central banker or anyone in the money markets would talk about it.
Central bankers would describe this as easing financial conditions or enabling credit creation, not money creation.
You can sell that debt on to somebody else in exchange for goods and services.
That’s all money is - a circulating debt.
No. Most money in modern economies is created by private parties [1].
[1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...
They are regulated as bank under fed.
Currently. But nothing requires is. Banks can uniquely create M1. Nvidia is creating M4, which turns into M2 through the money markets, which turns into M1 at banks. It's more convoluted and limited than the Fed creating monetary base to increase M1. But the net effect is similar–more M1.
Bank takes $90 of that deposit (assuming 10% fractional reserve rule, no idea what the actual number is), and loans it out to party B, who pays it into either the same or another bank. Same rules apply -- except now it's down to $81 being loaned out, and so on and so forth, until that 100$ generated $1000 in total bank deposits.
edit: of course, it's never actually directly like this, a lot of other factors are involved, maybe the money is spent, maybe no one wants to borrow it, etc etc -- so it's more complicated but that's I think what they mean
Even if this money eventually gets loaned out eventually by one of NVIDIA's customers putting it into a bank, it isn't NVIDIA inflating the money supply, it's the borrowers, no? Or is this an ineffective way to look at things?
Quite why this persists when the Bank of England debunked it in 2014 [0] is anybody’s guess.
Just another of those concepts that is neat, plausible and wrong.
[0]: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
Yes, there is. We just changed how we measure the fraction from a crude one like a reserve requirement (which takes zero account of asset quality or funding source) to finer and more-robust ones like capital and liquidity reqirements.
Banks still have to hold reserves. And those required reserves constrain their lending and thus the amount of money they can create. The limits just aren't the old-school reserve requirement.
Liability side controls don’t work.
Which country's capital and liquidity requirements are you thinking of?
Because Basel III dictates ratios. These are hard limits on lending.
There’s no hard limits. They are ratios which are preprepared because a bank knows how big its sales pipeline is and that takes time to complete.
Nothing is limited in quantity. Even the silly SLR they have in the US is a pricing limit, not a quantity - as we see every time somebody moans about how much the deficit has gone up.
Ratios are limits!
> Nothing is limited in quantity
Of course it is. At a certain point, compliance will say you literally cannot issue loans of certain types because of capital or liquidity ratios. If compliance fails to do that, regulators come in and yell at everyone.
The capital ratio is 20%. I sell $20 of capital in exchange for $20 of deposits which are deleted.
And then I do the same tomorrow.
All ratios met. No limit on loans.
If you go to a bank and get a loan, that is literally money that did not exist before you got a loan. People think that you are borrowing money that somebody else put in the bank, but that's not true. Banks can lend out a lot more money than people put into them.
If I give you GPUs worth $1bn, but take 100m payments for 11 years, then during that time you can use your other mony to buy other things that arent GPUs
If we stop after the 11 years and dont make new loans, the supply has shrunk back
It’s been zero in the UK for hundreds of years.
The 2008 global financial crisis was a result of this, so not a made up worry.
The GFC would not have been prevented by a reserve requirement. The problem didn't originate in the banking system, and transmission to the banking and payment systems wasn't reliant on leverage per se.
Who said anything about that?
> The problem didn't originate in the banking system
I guess i consider mortgage lending part of the banking system, but no matter - my point is it was created by financial institutions lending in ways that created money, helped their bottom line in the short term, and were unaccountable. That’s why i’m worried about how much of the US economy is created by private companies creating money out of thin air by loaning in loops.
Which is, you know, the entire risk that people are worried about.
Bankruptcy is deflationary. The same way credit creation makes money bankruptcy (and any other reduction of debt, including through repayment) destroys it. It's why financial crises were often followed by deflation in gold-based economies.
They shouldn't have been a TA. Modern money is destroyed in three ways: through taxation, defaults and the extinguishing of debts.
Now to expand GP's example (still simplified):
- A borrows $100k money to pay B toward building a house. B puts $100k in their bank.
- C borrows $90k from B's bank toward building a house to pay D. D puts $90k in their bank.
- etc
So, houses were created (or other services were provided), and that's the real multiplicative factor. If banks loan out 90% of the cash stored (i.e. keep 10% in reserve [1]), the multiplicative factor of value creation in the economy is 10x the original amount of cash deposited in the first bank.
Now, if all of us withdrew our savings at once or sold all our stocks at once, we would have an economic shock analogous to that which resulted the Great Depression. That's why for banks, we have FDIC insurance - to mitigate such a panic so that money can serve its value-multiplicative role when it's not being actively used for anything else by the person owning the money. That's also why a positive (but low) inflation was originally considered economically healthy - so that people put their money in banks/market rather than under their mattresses gradually losing value. When interest rates are low, that encourages people to put their money into riskier (non-FDIC-insured) investments with higher growth potential, like a balanced portfolio of stocks/bonds/etc to avoid losing value to inflation, resulting in more economic growth.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
It's the other way around. When a bank loans someone $1,000, they create a $1,000 deposit (their liability) and a $1,000 asset (their loan). Loans create deposits.
The Treasury can mint coin. But that's basically negligible in modern economies.
Unfortunately this kind of thinking is why so many people seem to think the big AI labs are totally killing it the second they make a “profit” on inference. Yes if you ignore the balance sheet all looks fine. Unfortunately companies go bankrupt because of their balance sheets, not operating profits and losses. You can make money on the direct COGS on every transaction and still be bankrupt.
But everyone is now chasing the same opportunity (AI and its dependencies like hardware and power) that will drive prices higher in those sectors until supply responds (or demand disappears).